Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
SUMMARYObjectiveTo evaluate efficiency and performance of Erytra® analyser in comparison to the reference platform of the NBT immunohaematology laboratory (Bio‐Rad ID‐System).BackgroundMoving to automation or semi‐automation is a major focus of transfusion centres. The Erytra® (Grifols) is a new fully automated walk‐away analyser with high volume processing capacity for pre‐transfusion testing, designed to be used with the unique 8‐column DG Gel® cards.Study Design and MethodsA total of 2201 immunohaematological tests (1041 ABO/D grouping, 1041 antibody screening, 51 antibody identification, 45 newborns (ABO/D and DAT) and 23 crossmatches were performed on 1160 donor/patient whole blood samples. Erytra®'s performance was assessed by means of a stress test replicating the routine work of a hospital laboratory.ResultsConcordant results between the Erytra® and the reference method were obtained in 2195 (99·73 %) of the tests. There were only three discrepancies out of 6246 reactions (0·05%) in ABO/D grouping, all in the reverse group which did not mislead to group identification. Of the 1041 samples screened for antibody presence, Erytra® detected all the relevant antibodies [9 not detected weak prophylactic anti‐D were determined to be clinically nonsignificant (<0·1 IU mL−1)] while Bio‐Rad ID‐System missed one anti‐e and one anti‐Jka. Concordance for D grouping, crossmatching and newborns was 100%. Results of the simulated stress test exercise highlighted the capacity of Erytra® for absorbing into 4 h workloads equivalent to 24 h of routine.ConclusionsGrifols' Erytra® analyser showed reliable high sensitivity, velocity and capacity to cope with high workload in the immunohaematology laboratory routine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: